Re: DEC vs AltaVista

From: Dan L. Burk <BURKDANL[_at_]shu.edu>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 08:07:19 -0400

On 6/2/97, Jeremy G. Byrne <jeremy[_at_]midnight.com.au> wrote:
>
> On 29/05/97, David Post <postd[_at_]erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > the difficult issue of whether "any Web activity, by anyone, absent
> > commercial use, absent advertising and solicitation of both advertising
> > and sales, absent a contract and sales and other contacts with the
> > forum state, and absent the potentially foreseeable harm of trademark
> > infringement, would be sufficient to permit the assertion of
> > jurisdiction over a foreign defendant."
>
> What provisions could _possibly_ exist to exert jurisdiction over a
> "foreign defendant" hosting a site from a county outside the Berne
> Convention, WTO etc. (such as Iran, Ethopia, the Cook Islands or
> San Marino)?

There are a large number of possibilities where jurisdiction would lie -- closest to the present discussion, if the trademark infringement has an impact on U.S. commerce, U.S. nationals are involved, and the suit will not offend the substantive law of another soveriegn, U.S. courts will take jurisdiction under the Lanham Act (which extends to "all commerce" that may be lawfully controlled by Congress).

---

Dan L. Burk
Seton Hall University
burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu

---

Received on Tue Jun 03 1997 - 12:09:46 GMT